Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, the majority leader.

(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the bill that was supposed to be on the floor either yesterday or today dealing with DACA and dealing with the children, who are an object of great concern by all the country, is not mentioned in the gentleman's remarks for legislation that will be considered next week.

The DACA bill was supposed to be voted in the second immigration bill pursuant to the rule that we adopted this week. That vote, I thought, had been postponed until next week. Now, however, I do not see it being announced as a bill that is going to be considered.

It is disappointing that, after months of committing to working together on a solution to the DACA crisis, Mr. Speaker, this week, the House considered two partisan bills.

I would like to point out that Speaker Ryan, on September 5, 2017, some 8 months ago, said: ``It is my hope that the House and Senate, with the President's leadership, will be able to find consensus on a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this country.''

Speaker Ryan said more recently, on February 8, 2018, when he urged people to support the caps bill--that is, setting the limits of expenditures--``my commitment to working together,'' and he looked at our side of the aisle when he said that. But, Mr. Speaker, the only persons who apparently will be included in ``working together'' are between the Freedom Caucus and others on the Republican side of the aisle.

He went on to say: ``My commitment to working together on an immigration measure that we can make law is a sincere commitment. Let me repeat,'' the Speaker said, ``my commitment to working together on an immigration measure that we can make law is a sincere commitment. We will solve this DACA problem.''

He said that February 8, 2018, from that rostrum on the floor of this House. There has been no ``together.''

Now, my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, said this: ``This all started when I was at Camp David with the President this weekend.''

We know that the majority leader is probably the closest ally that the President has in the Congress of the United States.

``He was telling me how, earlier last week, he was with some Republican Senators talking about DACA. They all agreed, but he said we can't solve that unless we bring Democrats into the room, too.''

That was Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy on FOX News on January 10, 2018.

So I ask my friend, the majority leader, can the gentleman clarify whether or not changes will be made to H.R. 6136--that is, the Ryan- Trump so-called compromise that, from our perspective, ``together'' meant simply together among Republicans trying to decide what the Republicans wanted to do. Can you tell me whether there will be changes to that so-called compromise bill and whether or not that

bill may be brought to the floor anytime soon?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, together, working with their Conference, not with us, not, frankly, with a bipartisan group that has support on this floor of 240 Members. 240 Members of the House of Representatives, and you need 218 for a majority, support an option and have been asking for that option for a long period of time.

Now, the majority leader is looking somewhat quizzical, Mr. Speaker, and he wants to know how you get to 240; 193 plus 47.

There were 54 Republicans who asked for the rule putting four bills on the floor, but 7 were, apparently, encouraged to take their name off of that, so only 47 Republicans remain. All 193, that is 240. That is a majority of the House.

What was asked for was to put four options, giving everybody a chance to put the option that they liked on the floor. Notwithstanding Speaker Ryan's commitment and notwithstanding the comments that Mr. McCarthy made following his meeting at Camp David with the President of the United States where they needed to bring Democrats in, all we have seen is a deeply divided Republican Party negotiating with itself.

They brought a bill to the floor, and they passed the rule. The only real effect of the rule, because the bill lost, was to negate the 216 signatures--and we believe there would have been more but for arm- twisting--to bring those compromised bills to the floor, which had both Republicans and Democrats working together and supporting. Two of those bills, the principal sponsors were a Republican and a Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, he says he is going to bring a bill to the floor--I presume he is talking about the bill that was going to be brought to the floor yesterday then changed to today, and then changed to next week--whether there will be amendments in that bill and, if so, will they be discussed with us and will we have input into that process?

The gentleman concluded, Mr. Speaker, his comments with he hopes he could have our support. We are not included. We are shut out. The compromise has been rejected and undermined, and the Speaker ignored 216 people who asked for those bills to be brought to the floor, and he said no: no openness, no transparency, closed rules, consistent with the policies that have been followed in this, the most closed Congress in which I have served.

So I would ask my friend again, Mr. Speaker: What changes will be affected in the bill that would be brought to the floor, or are we going to be told when they are brought to the floor what those changes are?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time just to remind the majority leader of what I asked.

The majority leader likes to talk about what we did in the past. His party shut down the government, and he says I voted to shut down the government. That is absurd that he could cite a vote of mine against some sort of proposal that they put forward.

The question is: He refuses to put on a bipartisan, to give even the House the opportunity to consider a bill that is supported by 240 Members of this House. And, frankly, my perception--and I am not bad at counting, Mr. Speaker, which is why I am standing at this podium and why the majority leader is standing at his podium. We understand counting.

I dare him, Mr. Speaker, I dare him to put the Hurd-Aguilar bill on the floor, and I guarantee him it will get 240 votes. The people's House will be allowed to speak. But they are afraid to do that, Mr. Speaker.

All of this stuff about we had meetings in his office, we had meetings in his office and he knew, from the start, that the two things they were asking for were nonstarters. Very frankly, I have had discussions with the Secretary, who said: Well, we will just stick with border security and DACA.

But that is all in the past. What we are talking about is today. And what they did was shut down the people who wanted to vote on their option, on our option, and on two other options in this, the most transparent House that would take issues one by one and would face the tough issues head-on. While people are twisting in the wind and while children are being separated from their parents, ripped from the arms of their moms and their dads, we fiddle while Rome is burning, and we talk about shutting down government.

Their party shut down government a number of times since I have been here. They did it intentionally. And, very frankly, their Speaker and the head of the OMB voted ``no'' and to shut it down; they voted not to open it up.

That is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is: What are we going to do to solve a problem the President of the United States said we ought to solve?

Now, the President of the United States, of course, this morning, says: No, forget it. Go deal with it.

His tweet at 7:06 a.m. this morning: ``Republicans should stop wasting their time on immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November''--in other words, until we take over.

This President who said: Well, you know, I met with Kim Jong-un. He is loved by his people. And, boy, when he says stand up, his people stand up.

Perhaps, that is what he wants us to do, Mr. Speaker, but we are not North Korea. We are a democracy, and, very frankly, they don't have the courage, Mr. Speaker, to bring bills to the floor and allow this House to work its will. What they do is they negotiate with themselves and bring bills to the floor, neither of which would have passed yesterday.

After all of their compromise, after all of their talk, and after all of their commitments to solve the problem, neither one of their bills would have passed yesterday. They have 240-plus Members. They don't need us, but they took the bill off the floor because they couldn't get their own party to come to agreement.

So, Mr. Speaker, my question is, and I will reiterate my question: What changes are going to be effected in the bill that would have been considered yesterday, had it not been pulled from the floor, that we will have to consider next week?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Certainly.

Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer the question, of course. He hardly ever does.

400,000 more jobs created in 2016 than 2017. He doesn't say that. They inherited a growing economy. We inherited, when President Obama took office, a receding economy, hemorrhaging 787,000 jobs in January of 2009. He doesn't talk about that. That was after the two tax cuts that they passed in 2001 and 2003 that they said would create the greatest economy we have ever seen. It didn't. He didn't say that.

Mr. Speaker, he didn't say that the only time we balanced the budget for 4 years was under President Clinton, and we created jobs and had the best economy he has experienced and I have experienced. He didn't say that.

And, Mr. Speaker, what he didn't say is why we are not bringing to this floor four pieces of legislation, giving everybody on the floor the opportunity to express their opinion and say to the American people how they think we can address, yes, border security, which we want to address.

But what the President asked us to do and the Speaker said he would do, and the Speaker has not done, and that is to address in a rational way, in a way that can get the majority of votes--the two bills they brought to the floor, they knew they couldn't get the votes.

The farm bill that he just talked about that is going to the Senate, it is dead on arrival. He knows it, Mr. Speaker. The 69 times they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, wasted time. He knows it.

And he mentions, by the way, how bipartisan this Congress is. Let me tell you why it is bipartisan: we don't control it, but we cooperate when we can. When we were in charge, it wasn't nearly as bipartisan, because the Republicans did not cooperate when they could.

And, Mr. Speaker, he talks about fiscal bills. Ninety percent of the fiscal bills could not have passed this House, kept the government open, opened the government up, give relief to those who were suffering from natural disasters without substantial Democratic help, and in many instances with the majority of Democrats and the minority of Republicans.

But the answer I looked for, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to consider next week in terms of an issue that the Speaker said some 8 months ago we were going to solve and promised us in February 2018 he was going to address to solve DACA? And now we have this crisis in the country created by the President of the United States with children being wrenched from the arms of their moms and dads. That is what we ought to be discussing.

The majority leader is a good friend of the President's. I understand that. All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call and say to the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security: stop wrenching those children from the hands of their parents.

We don't need legislation, but now we have legislation. And I would ask him if he would bring the Nadler bill to the floor, which will prevent children from being wrenched from the hands of their families simply because they have committed a misdemeanor of wanting to seek opportunity in the land of opportunity that we call America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend for his response, but we need to know what is going to be considered next week.

Apparently, they haven't decided. So the majority leader says they will let us know as soon as they have decided what they are going to do--who they have to deal with to cobble the votes together on their side of the aisle. We have 240-plus votes for an option, but they are being muzzled. They are being prevented to express the will of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leader, does he believe that my representation that Hurd-Aguilar has 240 votes on this floor inaccurate?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, we will close now.

Neither of the questions that I posed were answered. And certainly the fact that there are 240 votes on this floor was not disputed, by the majority leader, for the Hurd-Aguilar, which addresses security at the border. By the way, cosponsored by Mr. Hurd, a Member of the majority leader's party. A Member from Texas who knows about the border and who, I presume, wants to keep it secure. The bill he has cosponsored has at least 240 votes on this floor.

This is the most closed Congress in which I have served, the most closed rules. That is a fact. And apparently it is closed to the majority, who want to move ahead on a bill and just have the opportunity to vote on it and to give the Speaker the opportunity to put something on the floor and have the House consider it, and have Ms. Roybal-Allard and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Republican from Florida, have a bill on the floor and have it considered, and have Mr. Goodlatte, who did, in fact, have his bill on the floor, and it lost.

So, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I don't know what there is going to be next week, because we need to take action. And we need to take action not by compromising with one side of the aisle and seeing only capitulation by some. We do need compromise, we do need action, and we need action that can pass the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes are expected no later than 3 p.m.

On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, the House will continue our work on appropriations by taking up the 2019 Defense Appropriations bill sponsored by Representative Kay Granger.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are committed to national security and rebuilding our military. This bill fully funds a well-deserved 2.6 percent pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform, their largest pay raise in 9 years. It prepares for the future by investing more than $90 billion into the research and development of new defense systems and technology. Above all, it ensures American Armed Forces have the equipment and training necessary to successfully carry out their missions around the world.

This bill passed 48 to 4 out of subcommittee, so I hope my friends across the aisle will consider voting for this important bill when it reaches the floor.

Speaking of national security, the House will also make a motion to go to conference on the National Defense Authorization Act, which the House passed last month.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible in the House, including two bills from the Committee on Natural Resources.

First, H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, sponsored by Representative Don Young: This bill would reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens and replace one-size-fits-all regulations with a tailored approach that will ensure vibrant American fisheries.

Next, H.R. 2083, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act, sponsored by Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler: This bill will allow State and Tribal authorities to respond more quickly to predators of the native salmon population.

Mr. Speaker, the House is also expected to consider legislation related to border security and immigration.

As soon as our schedule is finalized, I will be sure to inform all Members.

With that, I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate him watching me on TV.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just restate, so maybe I could speak more clearly.

The House is also expected to consider legislation relating to border security immigration. So the answer is yes.

As I said before, we are bringing that bill to the floor. We have been working very closely with the entire Conference, taking all ideas in. We had a very productive conference last night. We will work through the weekend, and you will see that bill on the floor next week. And I look forward to Mr. Hoyer's support as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to me to listen to my friend. He is complaining that somehow he is not involved. Mr. Speaker, he is complaining about the number of hours that he sat in my office, not just himself--Senator Durbin, the chief of staff to the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security as well, and Senator Cornyn--and we worked time and again. But every time, we tried to find compromise. We even went to the point of their number one issue, and the President went beyond what they even asked.

But they said: No, we can't do anything else. They said all they wanted to do was go do a discharge petition. That is all they wanted. They didn't want to work through the system.

But that was not unusual, because my friend, Mr. Speaker, likes to quote people--I don't have it written. I just have it by memory, the number of times my friend told me he would never vote to shut down the government. He doesn't care about politics; he would never do that. But we found it was a different year and a different time.

Then we talked about children's health, CHIP. A number of times, Mr. Speaker, we would go to the other side, we would go to the ranking member, and we would go to those individuals on the committee, but they were told not to work with us. So we would run a bill, Mr. Speaker, with everything that they had ever said they would want in it, and yet they would get to the day and they would vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just asked the gentleman if he would allow me the opportunity to answer questions.

I know he likes to make long speeches before he gets to a question, and I know he likes to go back in decades for the decades that he has served, but I was only referring to this Congress. I was moving to the answer, but I was building and explaining why the answer is what it is.

He doesn't think the actions prior don't take place until now. We have sat in those rooms and we talked about border security. The interesting part, though, Mr. Speaker: The other side of the aisle that said they were for border security, they were going to perpetuate the problem we currently have because they did not want to end this catch and release. They are going to put families in harm's way.

They question whether you could actually have a border of a wall. That is really the philosophical debate that we are talking about.

Now, we will work through this bill. There are some other parts of the bill that we are working on this weekend. Any changes that come to a conclusion, of course, we will let you know.

But much of what this bill is is the same thing that we talked down at the White House about and we talked for those numbers of hours inside my office about.

But, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman on the other side said that he was never going to shut down the government, but he voted to do it this time. They said that they were concerned about CHIP, but they would vote against it when we bring it to the floor.

Do you know what we had to do? We had to carry it on our own.

And do you know what happened for the American children? The longest it has ever been renewed: 10 years.

So, yes, we want to work with them. But if the idea is to stop anything from happening for the American public, do not expect me to stop. It is too important. If we have to push through on our own, we will.

And my friend made a statement that this body is one-sided. Don't take my word for it. Let's go to Quorum, a company that only focuses on data, that only focuses on measurements. Do you know what they said about this Congress? Seventy percent of the bills signed into law this Congress have one Republican and one Democratic cosponsor, the highest rate in the past 20 years for bipartisanship.

The bills that we bring to the floor, despite the leadership's push, every week, Mr. Speaker, we can see the actions. What was the action that they held everybody until the last minute for those 23 people who wanted to vote for the appropriations bill? They had to wait until the Republicans carried it, then they released them to vote for it.

Or we talk about the farm bill.

Every day, Mr. Speaker, I come back here, I see the ranking member on the other side put a letter out to her Members to not vote for whatever comes.

And, yes, we on this side of the aisle want to solve DACA. But I know. I read your tweets just as well: Dreamers can still apply to renew DACA protections.

But, do you know what? In our bill, we deal with the DACA situation.

Do you know what else we also deal with? We deal with the border, and we deal with security, because we do not want to be back here in another 2 or 5 years with the same problem we have today.

Even if you won't work with us from the children's health insurance, from funding of government, from appropriations for our veterans, you want to hold those votes back, I don't think the public wants to hold those back.

And you know what? If we have to push forward, we will. And I will not apologize for it. This country is too important, the problems are too big.

And I can listen, Mr. Speaker, to every argument we make, but I will just think the American public can look at the data.

Do you know what today is, Mr. Speaker? The 6-month anniversary of the tax bill passing. You know what else it is? One million new jobs. You know what else it is? Unemployment below 4 percent. And in the last 49 years of this country, unemployment below 4 percent has only been 7 months in 49 years, but two of those 7 months were April and May of this year. Unemployment claims, 44-year low. And for the first time in the history of this Nation, there are more jobs being offered than there are people looking for them.

So all that rhetoric, all those arguments you made building up to that tax bill, the Armageddon, the crumbs, how terrible this is going to be, 6 months later, history proves different.

And you know what, Mr. Speaker? If we had waited and waited for the Democrats, there would not be a million new jobs, there would not be unemployment where it is, because, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one Democrat to vote for it, even though a number of them privately told me on this floor they wanted to, but their leadership told them no.

So if we have to solve the economy and we have to solve immigration on our own, we will.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. My friend made a lot of points. Sometimes facts get caught up in them.

So, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about the floor and the willingness of this side to allow Democratic amendments, or bipartisanship.

As of June 7, Republicans in the 115th Congress--and we are not done with this Congress yet--have provided for the consideration of over 1,200 amendments on the House floor. Now, that includes 570 Democrat amendments.

And I don't want to compare apples to oranges, so let's do apples to apples.

So in the entire 111th Congress--that was their entire Congress when my friend was majority leader--Speaker Pelosi allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor.

Now, despite the unified Democratic opposition, Republicans are still getting the work done, and we will continue to do that.

Now, my friend made a few statements, said there are things I did not say. Maybe there were some things I did not say about the economy, but they are different than what he would, because there is some really good news, and it is not far from here.

Mr. Speaker, you could go to my friend's district. Each of the counties that make up Maryland's Fifth Congressional District has seen a drop in unemployment since 2016. St. Mary's County is down over a full percent to 3.7, Calvert County down to 3.5, Charles County down to 3.8, Prince George's down to 4.1, and Anne Arundel County down to 3.2 percent.

Now, the other point I did not make--and I thank the gentleman for bringing it up to me that I missed points--do you realize in America today, if you are African American, this is the lowest unemployment has ever been; if you are Hispanic, the lowest it has ever been.

Yes, there are things we had to do on our own, but the numbers prove it is worth it.

And what is even more telling about this and something that makes me prouder, it doesn't just help Republican districts, it helps everybody's districts. It helps all Americans. And that is what we are here for.

My friend brought up that there are issues. Yes, there are. That is why we want to pass the immigration bill. We think there should be a border and the border should be protected. We think children should be with their parents, and that is what we are working on.

So I look forward to next week, to us passing an immigration bill that solves a lot of these problems.

And, Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend from the other side of the aisle would look at the bill and understand not everybody gets what they want, because in that bill there won't be everything that I want, not one person in this room will get everything they want. But will America be safer? Will America be better in the future? Will we have a system that works? Those answers will be yes, and that is how I will cast my vote.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to Kurt Schrader, who has been a partner with me on this legislation for a while--actually, since before I was here, he has been working on this bill--and today is a good day.

``I would like to think that there might still be salmon and steelhead to fish for when my great-grandkids try fishing.'' That is from Bob, who lives in Brush Prairie in my district. I have heard Bob's sentiments echoed literally from thousands of folks across southwest Washington.

Unfortunately, our salmon runs are now fighting for survival. It is practically a miracle when a fish can make it upstream without getting caught between a sea lion's teeth. They certainly don't get caught unscathed.

Mr. Chairman, what we currently have on the Columbia River is an ecosystem seriously out of balance. I recently met with local fishing guides who, with despair in their voices, told me between 70 and 100 percent of the fish they land show visible signs of a struggle with a sea lion, barely escaping becoming a meal for the already engorged sea lions. We are seeing fewer and fewer salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon make it past this gauntlet of sea lions as the fish make their way upstream.

Donald from Vancouver told me the other day he reeled in a salmon-- half of a salmon. A sea lion was fighting him for the other half.

Look, we are not anti-sea lion. Oh, my goodness, no. We are just for protecting our native fish, a Pacific Northwest icon, and in order to do that, we have got to make it easier to remove some of the most egregious offenders, problematic pinnipeds.

Sea lions aren't endangered anymore. In fact, they are doing really, really well. They weigh a ton. Literally, a Steller sea lion can weigh up to 1 ton. Between the California and the Steller sea lions, their populations have increased by hundreds of thousands, and now they are overindulging on an all-you-can-eat buffet of salmon at numbers that are totally unnatural on the Columbia River system. The sea lions are winning this battle.

Forty-five percent of spring Chinook adult salmon disappear between the mouth of the Columbia River and the Bonneville Dam. Oregon's fish and wildlife agency has concluded after much study that the Willamette River steelhead runs are facing a 90 percent chance of extinction due to predation.

That is why we are here today, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan effort to save our wild fish from being decimated by animals that have migrated out of their natural habitat and whose population is ever increasing.

My bill, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act, provides Tribal and government resource managers with the means to rapidly respond and remove California and Steller sea lions from specific areas where they are posing the most harm to our salmon restoration efforts.

The Columbia River makes up the entire southern border of my district. The river is a lifeline for clean, affordable energy and brings economic benefit through both recreational and commercial fishing.

While the lethal take of sea lions is a last resort, it is necessary to protect the hundreds of millions of dollars in investments that the Northwest residents have made to protect and enhance salmon and other ESA-listed species on the Columbia River.

Nonlethal solutions like hazing and, literally, transporting sea lions hundreds of miles away and releasing them have not worked. The sea lions come right back.

In Washington State, we are forced to live with a cautionary tale of failing to take strong action. In the 1980s and 1990s, Federal officials failed to grant the same authority that we are asking for today to halt the salmon slaughter in Seattle at the Ballard Locks. By the time Congress acted, a whole run of steelhead was decimated.

Let's not allow history to repeat itself. H.R. 2083 is a much-needed solution. The bill would amend section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide States and local Tribes with the tools necessary to humanely manage sea lions on the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries as long as the sea lions are not part of an ESA-listed species. This is common sense, Mr. Chairman.

Additionally, this legislation allows not only the Northwest State wildlife agencies, but also qualified Tribes to obtain permits to help protect the recovery of ESA-listed salmon, authority not granted currently under the law.

Simply put, my bill cuts through the bureaucratic red tape, streamlines the permitting process, and allows States and Tribes to rapidly respond to remove sea lions from areas they pose the most threat to salmon recovery. Mr. Chairman, this is the last line of defense against fish runs bordering on extinction.

This bill enjoys bipartisan support both here in Congress and at home. As I mentioned, my friend and neighbor to the south, Kurt Schrader, has been an invaluable partner in getting this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is supported by the Governors of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission; the Washington, Idaho, and Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Ilwaco Charter Association; the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries; and the Coastal Conservation Association of Oregon and Washington. Public utilities are among the bill's supporters.

I am also pleased a companion bill is moving through the Senate now, with bipartisan support, underscoring the urgency of this issue.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting H.R. 2083. Let's make sure our kids and our grandkids and great-grandkids can experience the thrill of reeling in their first salmon on the Columbia River.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter of support from the Public Power Council and a letter of support from the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

June 22, 2018.

To: Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, and Northwest

Congressional Delegation.

Re Support for H.R. 2083 and S. 1702--To reduce marine mammal

predation on endangered Columbia River salmon.

We come together today to lend our strong and joint support

for H.R. 2083 and S. 1702, bills that would reduce predation

of endangered adult salmon and steelhead. The Public Power

Council (PPC) is a not for profit association that represents

about 100 consumer-owned electric utilities in the Pacific

Northwest on issues regarding the Federal Columbia River

Power System. The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

(CRITFC) provides coordination and technical assistance to

the tribes in regional, national, and international efforts

to ensure

that treaty fishing rights issues are protected in a way that

guarantees the continuation and restoration of tribal

fisheries into perpetuity.

In the last few decades, west coast sea lion populations

have increased ten-fold. This growing population has expanded

its search for food and found it in the Columbia and

Willamette Rivers, river systems they had never before

accessed. A recent NOAA Fisheries study estimates that

pinnipeds consumed between 10-45 percent of some stocks of

returning adult salmon in 2017. It is difficult to envision a

successful recovery plan for fish listed under the Endangered

Species Act without addressing this aggressive predation on

the very adult fish that have benefitted from current efforts

only to fall short in surviving a return to their spawning

grounds.

H.R. 2083 and S. 1702, introduced in the first session of

the 115th Congress, address this concern by building on

existing authorities that allow some lethal take of sea lions

near Bonneville Dam by appropriate tribal and state entities.

Fisheries biologists estimate predation would greatly

decrease by incorporating all management activity in the

areas of high predation between the mouth of the river up to

the dam.

These bills are widely supported in the Northwest. In

addition to this joint support from CRITFC and PPC, regional

governors from both parties, along with other industries who

rely on healthy salmon and steelhead runs, have come together

to back these bills. We are hopeful the proposals will

receive broad bipartisan support in the House of

Representatives and Senate.

This situation continues to expand supporters of this

legislation among diverse interests in the public, private

and nonprofit sectors. Our joint support represents that

healthy salmon and steelhead runs are critical to the future

of the Columbia River treaty tribes and utilities. This bill

would give fisheries managers greater tools to appropriately

reduce predation of these endangered fish. Again, we support

H.R. 2083 and S. 1702 and urge their expeditious passage

through Congress.

Sincerely,

Scott Corwin,

Executive Director, Public Power Council.

Jaime A. Pinkham,

Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to one piece. I keep hearing that this isn't a silver bullet. No one is claiming that this is a silver bullet. This is a step in the right direction to protect endangered salmon runs that are critical for commercial, recreational, and Tribal resource use. This is really iconic to the Pacific Northwest, and it is part of our heritage. It is something that we would like to pass on to our kids and our grandkids. Passing this bill today allows us to do that.

Ratepayers are so committed to this. In the States of Washington and Oregon, ratepayers who fund the Bonneville Power Administration and the dam--the hydro system--spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year. If you get it all together, it almost cracks $1 billion annually that is spent in mitigation efforts to protect the species that are impacted.

As ratepayers, we spend a lot of money to protect and support these runs because it is so specific and unique to our way of life. This is a critical thing for us. It is one of those things where you literally can stand on the shore of the Columbia River and you can watch sea lions toss salmon, and you watch them play with salmon. You can come across carcasses of salmon on the river with a single bite mark taken out.

I walked across and found a sturgeon longer than my arm with a single bite mark taken out of her stomach. Basically they took the eggs--they took the caviar--and then let it go.

We look at that and we think we, as ratepayers, because we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect these runs and bring them back into fuller health, to watch these animals not even eat a full meal but just play with them, it makes you sick, Mr. Chairman.

So if you are someone who believes in protecting species and having a balanced ecosystem--this isn't about picking one species over the other. This is literally us trying to restore some balance here. It is one of those things where you would have to fight hard to find a reason not to support this.

When very liberal Governors and very conservative Republican Governors come in and ask us to pass this legislation, it should cause you to stop and pause. This is one of those things that this body should be about, and today is a good chance to take a step forward in protecting these wild runs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2083. This legislation claims to

protect salmon in the Columbia River by authorizing an increase in the annual permits to kill California sea lions, Steller sea lions, and harbor seals.

It is true that many of our salmon and steelhead runs are not doing well. In 2017, runs of wild salmon and steelhead were the fourth lowest since 1979, and the most recent 3-year trend is steadily downward. It is devastating, I agree, but we should be legislating to address the real threats facing salmon recovery. Impacts to salmon caused by seals and sea lions pale in comparison to the harm caused by so many other threats.

Let's take a minute to go over some of the significant threats facing salmon: habitat loss and degradation, pesticides and toxic contaminants polluting tributary habitats, hydropower, invasive species, hatcheries, overfishing, by-catch, human population growth, climate change, and the bill the House Republicans pushed today to block court-mandated water releases from Federal dams to aid in salmon recovery.

I cannot support this bill. It does not address the root causes of salmon population decline and, instead, unfairly scapegoats sea lions.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to be standing here today to debate a bill that has become quite familiar to the House Natural Resources Committee over the past three Congresses.

I must point out the obvious fact, Mr. Chairman, that killing of sea lions is not a silver bullet for a salmon recovery. This bill is a five-cent solution to a $10 problem.

The fact is the sea lion predation pales in comparison to the harm caused to endangered salmon runs by habitat loss, dam operation, pesticides, invasive species, and several other human activities. The bill does absolutely nothing to address any of these major causes of salmon decline.

For example, NOAA Fisheries has found that the estimated salmon and steelhead production in the Columbia River basin is over 10 million fish below historic levels, with 8 million of that loss attributable to hydropower development and operation.

I must also point out the hypocrisy here. The bill before us today is described as a salmon protection act, but

it follows a series of House Republican priority bills that would push the West Coast salmon population to the brink of extinction.

Just this April, my Republican colleagues pushed through the House H.R. 3144, known in the fishing community as the ``Salmon Extinction Act,'' intended to block protection measures that experts tell us are necessary for salmon survival.

Last year, we saw similar attacks on salmon, Tribes, and the salmon fishing industry when House leadership rushed H.R. 23, also known as the GROW Act, through the House. This bill sought to eliminate protections for wild California salmon and put California's native fisheries and the thousands of jobs it supported on the path to extinction, meaning thousands of job losses across California, Oregon, and Washington State. House leadership pushed that bill even though estimates showed that 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct this century under current trends.

The congressional war on salmon has continued with riders in this year's appropriations bills. For example, the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill, approved by this Chamber earlier this month, will block the restoration of salmon runs in the Columbia River and California's San Joaquin River.

As if that were not enough, the Interior and CJS Appropriations bills also include riders that are being supported by the Republican majority. Yet here we are talking about killing hundreds of seals and sea lions because my Republican colleagues claim they want to recover salmon.

Let's be clear: The anti-salmon legislation and riders coming out of Congress are far bigger threats to salmon recovery than the sea lions' snacking habits. Restoring wild salmon that are under threat requires a sophisticated response that tackles the most pressing issues impacting salmon populations.

Instead, we are here today scapegoating marine mammals that are themselves under threat from this House's effort to roll back the Marine Mammal Protection Act in order to help oil and gas companies.

Marine mammals and salmon have coexisted together for millennia. Unfortunately, neither one has enough defenses against the agenda of the Republican Congress. We don't have to pick and choose which creatures are worthy of survival. I would encourage my colleagues to get serious about addressing the whole range of stressors that are driving salmon to extinction: dam operations, pesticides, invasive species, and human activities that are preventing full salmon recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject today's effort to force Congress to pick and choose between wildlife, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2083 authorizes the lethal taking of over 1,000 sea lions and an unknown amount of seals annually. Counter to what we have heard, the bill will not significantly aid in the recovery of salmon populations but needlessly targets seals and sea lions.

I think we have to put this piece of legislation in context to what this House has done and what the Natural Resources Committee has done: a pattern. It is another example of how my Republican colleagues view wildlife management policy in the 21st century. We have too many attacks on wildlife in this Congress.

Last year, Republicans released a bill to overturn a 2016 judicial decision to allow the shooting of cormorants without ever considering nonlethal management. The claimed rationale is to protect sports fishing and aquaculture, although scant science, evidence, or fact exists to prove that the birds significantly impact fish populations.

In February of last year, this Chamber voted to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to shoot bear cubs from a helicopter and gas wolf pups in their dens on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges to artificially inflate populations of moose and caribou prized by trophy hunters.

In the 115th Congress, Republicans have introduced dozens of bills and policy riders targeting the Endangered Species Act and species like the gray wolf, grizzly bears, greater sage-grouse, delta smelt, and Chinook salmon.

The Trump administration's announcement that the Department of the Interior will now consider trophy imports on a case-by-case basis gave life to harmful bills in Congress that support trophy killing of elephants and lions in African countries for purported conservation purposes.

In the midst of all of the mass shootings in the country, committee Republicans tried to disguise an NRA-backed bill as a sportsmen's bill, the SHARE Act, which would deregulate silencers and armor-piercing bullets. All these attacks on wildlife have been constant, they have not been backed in science, and they have not been supported by science or fact.

We all would like to see legislation that would tackle the real threats facing imperiled wildlife and, in this particular legislation, to do a study to assess that and then to talk about the kinds of efforts that could be undertaken to protect the salmon. But to merely do that without the science and the study I think is a mistake, and it fits into a pattern that is all too common and puts this legislation within the same context and the same pattern as the other pieces of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that the proponents of the legislation on both sides of the aisle, I understand, are representing not only constituent interests, but what they see is a good piece of legislation.

Let me just end by saying that similar legislation has been proposed in previous Congresses, but this bill would allow more killing of seals and sea lions than all of those before it. When this version of the bill was introduced in 2015, it proposed an annual taking of 92 California sea lions. Under this legislation, H.R. 2083, this would increase by tenfold and would include the killing of Stellar sea lions and harbor seals. I am disappointed that the legislation before us today has gone in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2083.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2083, a bipartisan effort by Ms. Herrera Beutler and Mr. Schrader, aims to cut red tape by updating Federal law to provide a temporary, expedited process to give States and Tribes the ability to address California sea lion predation of endangered salmon and other species on a limited basis.

Right now, ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year to help recovering salmon populations, only to have them end up in the stomachs of sea lions. Federal law provides conflicting mandates to protect each species but does not provide the flexibility to account for broader ecological interactions.

California sea lion populations on the West Coast have exploded, yet salmon runs continue to decline. According to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the sea lion population has grown to a level of roughly 300,000 individuals, and marine biologists conclude that their population is currently at carrying capacity.

Historically, California sea lions have foraged at the mouth of the Columbia River, but they have recently continued to move inland. As the sea lions move further upstream to feed, their diet exists increasingly more of endangered salmon.

H.R. 2083 will authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide to State and local Tribes the tools necessary to humanely manage sea lions that have migrated outside their historic range and pose an imminent threat to fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Federal permits authorized under H.R. 2083 would be limited to State and Tribal fishery managers who have a direct stake in a healthy regional ecosystem. It is absolutely imperative that we give local stakeholders the tools they need for a balanced ecosystem where both fish and sea lions can thrive.

This bipartisan bill has broad support from States, Tribes, public utility districts, advocacy groups, and hundreds of local businesses across the Pacific Northwest. It is a win for not only the endangered fish of the Pacific Northwest, but the ratepayers who are heavily invested in keeping these fish stocks flourishing and healthy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense bill.

And that is just the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would only say that, when there is a population of 300,000 sea lions, I would not call that endangered. They are protected under a Federal law, but they are not found to be endangered or threatened, as far as I know.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader), who is also a bipartisan cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chair, I include the Record letters of support for this legislation from Trout Unlimited, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and an additional list of supporters.

Trout Unlimited,

June 26, 2018.

Re Trout Unlimited Support for H.R. 2083, Endangered Salmon

and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: We, the undersigned represent the

nearly 10,000 members of Trout Unlimited in the states of

Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Trout Unlimited is the

country's largest and oldest, coldwater conservation

organization with over 300,000 members and supporters

nationwide.

TU has been deeply engaged in wild salmon and steelhead

recovery efforts in the Columbia Basin for several decades,

and it is our goal to restore healthy, fishable, naturally

reproducing salmon and steelhead populations.

Many issues impact salmon and steelhead recovery efforts in

the Columbia Basin.

Habitat degradation, hydropower operations, harvest and

hatchery management issues are all significant factors. This

legislation will help to provide resource managers with the

necessary tools to help reduce predation by pinnipeds, a

problem which has become increasingly significant over the

last decade, and is particularly impactful at key locations,

such as Willamette Falls.

Pinniped predation rates in the basin are significant. NMFS

marine mammal biologists believe that sea lion predation

accounts for 20% of Spring Chinook Salmon losses in the

Columbia. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has

completed a risk analysis that place the likelihood of

extinction for wild winter steelhead in the Willamette river

at 90% due in part to pinniped predation at the falls in

Oregon City.

H.R. 2083 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to

allow NOAA to issue permits allowing state agency

representatives in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, as well as

several area tribes to use lethal take of sea lions in a

portion of the Columbia river or certain tributaries in order

to protect fish from sea lion predation.

While we support a targeted approach to culling individual

sea lions in specific areas to help reduce the impact to wild

salmon and steelhead populations, we recognize that this

action is necessary, but not at all sufficient, to help

recover salmon and steelhead populations. To rebuild wild

salmon and steelhead we need to take a comprehensive,

science-based approach that addresses other major factors in

their decline. Restoring their habitat, improving hatchery

operations and fine-tuning angling regulations must be part

of the long-term solution. Many of these actions are

underway, and we need to redouble these efforts.

We urge you to vote yes on H.R. 2083.

Sincerely,

Terry Turner,

Oregon Council Chair.

Ed Northern,

Idaho Council Chair.

Brad Throssel,

Washington Council Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), who will talk, among other things, about the mitigation efforts that the ratepayers have been funding for the salmon.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of debate. This has been a good debate. I have been struck by the fact that every single speaker from the Northwest, on both sides of the aisle, has spoken in favor of this piece of legislation.

I find that very remarkable. Rarely do we have that kind of consensus, and yet we have that here with H.R. 2083.

Just to conclude, I would say that this is a commonsense piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the Federal Government sometimes has conflicting mandates. We have a law, on the one hand, that protects sea lions, but we have the endangered status of various salmon. These two are in conflict, unfortunately.

So let's take the side of the endangered species. We can do so on a limited and scientific basis, with the way that this bill has been crafted through a lot of compromise. In fact, before it even takes effect, there will be an environmental impact statement, which is a very lengthy process with lots of public comment, lots of judicial scrutiny, and so on.

So I find this to be a very commonsense piece of legislation with a lot of compromise built in, a lot of consensus. It makes so much sense that I hope that there would be no opposition or almost no opposition when this comes up for a vote. Let's all adopt H.R. 2083, a great piece of legislation for our environment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment, as modified.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.